The question is between two words, not what the words stand for. How has philosophy contributed to science? It matters not what a person says, but whether or not what is being said is true or not? And since Truth cannot manifest on the physical plane of existence, what does that say about both science and philosophy, since both ignore and deny three-quarters of the Whole of Existence?

And since Truth cannot manifest on the physical plane of existence, what does that say about both science and philosophy, since both ignore and deny three-quarters of the Whole of Existence? — 1 Brother James

You've just made a truth claim independent of woo. If what you contend here is true, then you can't say what you just said and it be true. Or not?

If what you contend here is true, then you can't say what you just said and it be true. Or not? — Tom Storm

The cat in the box?
Schrodinger
Heisenberg's uncertainty?
Or do some people think that philosophy means opinion?

What do you think?

I think that Philosophers is all that we are.
Existence can not be proven and I have been to the Mountaintop

Philosopher William Whewell created the name scientist in 1833,
prior to that they were called natural philosophers. — Rxspence

Hadn't encountered Whewell before, but discovered that he's a pretty major figure in English philosophy:

According to Whewell, all knowledge has both an ideal, or subjective dimension, as well as an objective dimension. He called this the “fundamental antithesis” of knowledge. Whewell explained that “in every act of knowledge … there are two opposite elements, which we may call Ideas and Perceptions” (1860a, 307). He criticized Kant and the German Idealists for their exclusive focus on the ideal or subjective element, and Locke and the “Sensationalist School” for their exclusive focus on the empirical, objective element. Like Francis Bacon, Whewell claimed to be seeking a “middle way” between pure rationalism and ultra-empiricism. Whewell believed that gaining knowledge requires attention to both ideal and empirical elements, to ideas as well as sensations. These ideas, which he called “Fundamental Ideas,” are “supplied by the mind itself”—they are not (as Mill and Herschel protested) merely received from our observations of the world. Whewell explained that the Fundamental Ideas are “not a consequence of experience, but a result of the particular constitution and activity of the mind, which is independent of all experience in its origin, though constantly combined with experience in its exercise” (1858a, I, 91). Consequently, the mind is an active participant in our attempts to gain knowledge of the world, not merely a passive recipient of sense data. — SEP Entry on Whewell

(This is similar to a point I often make in these discussions. It seems Kantian, but the article differentiates him from Kant, saying 'For Whewell, though the categories do make experience (of certain kinds) possible, the Ideas are justified by their origin in the mind of a divine creator', which of course Kant would not say.)

However, I can't discern in that article any reference to Whewell having created the term 'scientist'. I had read that this term was coined by Charles Babbage, in the same decade, in the context of the philosophers that used to meet in Babbage's salon (this account was given in Walter Isaacson's The Innovators.)

think that Philosophers is all that we are.
Existence can not be proven and I have been to the Mountaintop — Rxspence

Even if this is true, it still leaves us with a key question. How can you determine good from bad philosophy? Supplementary question: Did you arrive at the right mountaintop?

Philosopher William Whewell created the name scientist in 1833,
prior to that they were called natural philosophers. — Rxspence

If you want to start a discussion, you should contribute more of your own thinking before you ask us for ours.

This is true. The term "science" was introduced because "philosophy" was too broad back then. If you consider that philosophy has been around since (at least) Ancient Greece, it would only be natural that given almost 2000 years, it's field of enquiry would become quite large.

But then you have your answer, science is an outgrowth of philosophy. To speak loosely, you can't do away with your genes no matter how hard you try.

So sure, they'll be the rustic person like Dawkins or Tyson who deny or think philosophy is useless for science. But that just means they're operating with an impoverished metaphysical framework, closely linked with positivism.

It's still part of philosophy.

I can't discern in that article any reference to Whewell having created the term 'scientist'. — Wayfarer

Maybe not in that article, but it is not a secret. To be fair, it's not quite common knowledge.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127037417

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27114

Yes well that definitely seals it. I can't lay my hands on Isaacon's book right at the moment, although Whewell and Babbage were contemporaries, and I suppose it's possible that the former was one of the habitués of Babbage's salons, which eminent philosophers and scientists would frequent.

Actually that Edge article makes an interesting remark:

Coleridge, old and frail, had dragged himself to Cambridge and was determined to make his point. Coleridge stood and insisted that men of science in the modern day should not be referred to as philosophers since they were typically digging, observing, mixing or electrifying—that is, they were empirical men of experimentation and not philosophers of ideas. The remark was intended to be both a compliment and a slight. Science was everyday labor and philosophy was lofty thought.

Whereas, according to current science, thought cannot aspire to anything loftier than successful adaptation. But I'll let it go. Although casting about for more background on Whewell, I came across this.

I think theMetaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by E.A. Burtt says something about the topic. But it's been a while since I read that and I could be wrong.

Interesting article thanks for sharing.

Natural philosophers (aka philosophers of science) propose 'interpretations' of the current claims (models) of the sciences.

Scientists investigate natural phenomena via abductive 'conjectures and refutations'.

One hasn't become the other and in no substantial sense were they ever synonymous; natural philosophy and the natural sciences are just complementary practices such that the former is always implicit in the latter and the latter constrains and informs the former.

How can you determine good from bad philosophy? — Tom Storm

Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science seem to me hallmarks of "bad philosophy".

Science needs critical reasoning, data, and peer review.

Science needs critical reasoning — Wheatley

Critical reasoning is Philosophy
Logic is If/Then presentation of data
Only when all parties agree on the truth of facts and the logical deductive reasoning
can peer review be achieved.

E=mc2
However in quantum theory E=m
Either c=1 in all cases or we have an error

Science was everyday labor and philosophy was lofty thought. — Wayfarer

I don't think Scientists would appreciate unthinking laborer, nor should they.

Supplementary question: Did you arrive at the right mountaintop? — Tom Storm

Supplementary response: Can there be a wrong mountaintop if there is only one view?
Or were you referring to the left mountaintop?

Science needs critical reasoning, data, and peer review — Wheatley

I doubt it's impossible to do good science without peer review. Peer review might help reduce the odds of error, but it doesn't guarantee it.

Peer review could also lead to infinite regress. Every peer review would itself need to be peer reviewed, and the reviewers of the peers would need to be reviewed ad infinitum.

...a scientist who has never philosophized about his science can never be more than a second-hand, imitative, journeyman scientist. A man who has never enjoyed a certain type of experience cannot reflect upon it; a philosopher who has never studied and worked at natural science cannot philosophize about it without makng a fool of himself.
~R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature, Introduction, "Science and Philosophy"

Supplementary response: Can there be a wrong mountaintop if there is only one view?
Or were you referring to the left mountaintop? — Rxspence

So my point was how do you know you are right? You seem dogmatic, like a Christian apologist. The 'only one view' response is curious. Capital T truths are fraught.

Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science seem to me hallmarks of "bad philosophy". — 180 Proof

Agree although the pseudo-questions is a new one for me. Makes sense. Can you say some more?

The 'only one view' response is curious. — Tom Storm

Reference was MLK, I've seen the promised land.
There was no sensory vision, but all became clear.
Not Christian but not opposed.

Philosopher William Whewell created the name scientist in 1833,
prior to that they were called natural philosophers. — Rxspence

Science is a wholly owned subsidiary of materialism. — Some Guy

Science makes no bones about what it's about - study of matter & energy within a mathematical framework as far as possible and physics is its poster child.

But then,

Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. — Bertrand Russell

This thread is an all-important one because it reveals what's a startling truth as far as I'm concerned which is something as simple and as innocuous as a name change can make such a huge difference - science commands more respect and is treated as a real subject compared to philosophy which has now been relegated to just something a university needs to complete the set so to speak.

Stage Name

A performer will often take a stage name because their real name is considered unattractive, dull, or unintentionally amusing; projects an undesired image; is difficult to pronounce or spell; or is already being used by another notable individual, including names that are not exactly the same but still too similar. — Wikipedia

Could Science Exist Without Philosophy? (logic and reasoning)

No.

Never.

Next subject, please.

When I was teaching I made it clear to students that my job was to
teach how to think, not what to think.
Present material as well as the process used to arrive at consensus.
The goal was to get them to ask why are these considered facts.

Could Science Exist Without Philosophy? (logic and reasoning)

No.

Never.

Next subject, please. — ssu

:clap: :fire:

To test and formulate rigorous scientific laws and principles, it needs philosophical analysis, logic and reasoning.

"And since Truth cannot manifest on the physical plane of existence"

Why not? Philosophical thoughts like 19th century scientists had did certainly contribute. Physicists back then were philosophers of Nature at the same time. They had more comprehensive views on reality than modern-day ones.

And thoughts like the effect of frequency modulation on evaluating climate frequencies were
considered witchcraft.
Each measurement of Climate is an evaluation of climate and changes
the frequency that it is being evaluated.

4mReplyOptions — Rxspence

"Each measurement of Climate is an evaluation of climate and changes"

Why should a measurement be an evaluation? Because you compare all measurements at tbe same time the measurement is made? What is an evaluatiin of the climate?